Grandpa it's because i see no legit reason to oppose the moratotuim.. The BS about it being a decision somehow made without public imput is just BS. WDFW had just had a regulation meeting where this issue was discussed in depth. much to the dismay of the commission. The two year moratorium was a compromise and you object to it just as you object to every compromise!!!!!
What way is left for me to respond?? you will not settle for anything less than getting everything you want... That leads me to believe that all you care about is being able to kill what you want when you want... I think that a horrible attitude for a sport angler.


Micro

they are politically determined to have enough fish to havrvest. MSY is a political tool not a scientific one.. MSY is what governed harvest thoughtout all the state of WA and it has failed evrywhere. If it were not for ONP the forks ares streams would be failing worse than they are. good habitat goes a long way..

A permanent moratoruim would be intelligent and should be the goal of everyione ewho cares about wild fish.

Rob, education is something that never stops, you weren't born with the views you have now, they were learned. Have some patients for those that are in a different place than you. Nobody can learn with somebody shouting in their ear.

Once again Plunker shows us he full of crap

Mr Allen! Such fire, such passion! you are turning me on!

All kidding aside, believing that everyone that fishes a river or doesnt agree with the WSR is a heathen or an ignorant imbecile is not the way to get your point across (this goes both ways). After reading your posts, I for one (being ignorant and not belonging on the river) would never ever entertain your ideas or thoughts because you have no room in your mind to expand and listen to the other side of the coin. All people hear from you after a while is like the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoon "wahhhhwahhwha wah wah". Try fishing beside one of these "ignorant" people on the river and see how gently they release a wild fish (even if they can keep it and arent mandated to release it). See the respect that some of these fellow fisherman show for the resource and their surroundings. I think you would be able to share the river with them if you did that.

Im not trying to change your thinking, but just letting you know that not everyone is wanting to bonk a fish, hell, I have even been known to release hatchery fish because I know there is gonna be a bigger one later...even if it doesnt show up, I keep on hoping!

You mean the same science that has led to closures on most other rivers? And the same science that has lowered escapement goals on some rivers when the original escapement goals weren't met?
You really want to trust the future of steelheading to that science?

Cupo,

Uhhhh, ya that science. Why keep fishing during the run of a severly depressed wild stock when catch and release still causes death of all be it even a few fish.

Also,

If a river is closed to fishing during the bulk of the wild run there is no qoutas to be met by either side because there is no harvest by either side. If the river is open to catch and release the indians can complain they are entitled to 3 to 5 % of the fish, and they would definetly have a legal leg to stand on.

Rob....In the interest of hope I will keep responding to you.

First of all, I have said many times I have never kept a wild steelhead. So does that make me special in your book? I also carefully release 99% of all the fish I bring to hand. Does that make me an icon? Someone to be looked up to? Probably not.

I have worked for fishing issues for many years , even when it was not so popular. I have testified before the commission many times from the days when it first started. I have written about fishing and taught fishing and helped kids fish. Does all of that make me better than the average fisher? Probably not. It does give me a place at the table where I certainly do not belittle those who do not agree with me. I may think they are stupid but I don't tell them so in an attempt to get my own way. Sure its frustrating to try to sway a group of people who don't listen to you. That would be the WDFW commission. They put on a show to include the public but they don't like it. They would exclude all of us if they could , in my opinion.

Recently the commission has come around a bit and is responding to the incredible pressure from sports fishers. They still make decisions that are not fair in my opinion. They are being forced to follow a strict framework of public comment and the WSR decision was made outside that framework in the opinion of alot of smart people....these are not idiots. These are people capable of seeing the big picture who are willing to take a step back for two steps forward. People who are sick and tired of decisions being made changing sports fishing rules for periods of years without adequate and thorough public comment.

So, in conclusion, whether you can mature to see that you are out of line or not is up to you but I submit that you should apply your passion for your position in a much more palatable fashion so some of the important people out there actually listen.

Grandpa I thuroughly disagree. The issue of wild steelhead release has been hashed over time and time again in public testimony. The comission should not have to have a special comment period to let people hash it over again.

I believe that killing a wild steelhead is wrong and worthy of criminal status and the law should read that way. I don't care if that means no one ever gets to keep a steelhead ever again.

when i say somoene is ignotant i do not mean it as a belittleing statement . I mean it just as the word is defined. Someone who doesn't know what they are doing due to lack of knowledge or skill. That's all I don't mean anything else.

I have said several times and believe it whole heartedly that with all hatchery steelhead in this state which are pleanted in nearly every stream in the state that no one needs to harvest a wild s teelhead let alone 5 per year.
I think keeping one is an act of greed. I think being greedy when the future of your sport is in danger is a stupid thing to do. If we keep doing it, i say we because the people who do it make all of us as sport anglers collectively guilty, then all rivers are gonna be like the Washougal in very short order. It's already starting to happen..

again I don't think anyone should ever keep a wild steelhead ever again anywhere regardless of how healthy the run is, why?? because we have hundreds of thousands of hatchery fish made specifically for that purpose.

Grandpa.. I apprecciate whatever work you have done. I just have yet to hear any explanation for being opposed to making everyone release all wild steelhead..

The reason I say things the way I do is because no one listenes. until they have to.

It took us 10 years of begging , pleading,yelling screaming and writting to get the Washougal closed to wild steelhead harvest. WDFW wouldn't listen not until the rivers summer run was in total collapse runs of 200 fish or less were common. through the late 70's and 80's. I fear that happening on the Penninsula. Sad thing is it's already starting to happen. again were it not for ONP they'd be there already
I guess in short I am yelling and carrying on because you guys apparently don't see it happening because you still got good numbers up there. when i look at the skagit and see it is supposed to have 6000 fish i just sit back and wish the top 10 rivers i fish had 6000 among them. with so much other pressure on these fish why would an angler who cares about the future want to harvest one or stop a law that would end harvest from happening?????

I agree that if a run is severly depressed it shouldn't be fished on. But requiring the release of wild fish on other runs before they get that bad seems like the responsible choice.

If the available science claims there is a harvestable surplus, can't the tribes net them, regardless of whether or not we can fish at all?

Those of us in Region 5 and in other areas of Washington have willingly supported wild release for years now, and we are finally starting to see wild fish rebound. We kill hatchery fish and release wild fish, and things get better.
Forks, however, still wants to manage steelhead the same way they managed old growth timber. Shame on the commission for caving in to them on this issue.

I have remained silent on this issue because I don't fish for steelhead and believe those that are most passionate should be on stage, but one thing jumps out at me, RA3 gets away with comments that are totally denigrating to those that oppose his views while others are banned for expressing their "non-approved" opinions.

Bob?

I too have remained silent, and not bcause I don't have an opinion.

But I have yet to see anything good come from this sort of thread.

Does anybody know anybody whose mind or opinion was changed because of all the hours spent arguing.

Calling a human being a cracker, or stupid, or not as ethical as yourself, always seems to be the only thing that gets accomplished.

We all have opinions, and mine are more
easily changed or altered by pulling on me than by pushing me. Oh ya... but the easiest way to get me to see it your way is to call me stupid, unethical, and a cracker! Oh ya... and if I'm still not seein it your way, call me trailer trash! That'll get my mind right!

I think it has to be the internet! Nobody (unless they are in politics) says those kind of things or argues that way in public! Not with an IQ that gets them in out of the rain.

I wouldn't kill a native steelhead on purpose now, because I really believe they are special fish, and the wdfw says they are at risk. I hope it helps their survival. I never was any threat to them anyway! I'm the cracker they're talkin about! All else pale in coparison to me!

So as I see it, from what I've learned on this board. 90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the fisherman. So the simple answer to the problem is for the state to pass wsr for 90%of us, and the other 10% should quit fishin for steelhead. Now the incidental kill is negligible, and majority gets to fish for steelhead! We just have to release the nates!

See how simple it is!

No problem fixin that!

herm

good points herm..I listened to Russ Cahill, WDFW commissioner, on KJR's Call of The Wild show yesterday and he commented on the debate over WSR. He basically said what Rob demonstrates....Mostly fly fishers have been at the forefront of pushing the wsr issue and both sides DO yell at each other and insult each other at meetings. Very little science enters the argument but lots of personal insults do. The issue has been on and off the table for a few years and neither side has budged.

By the way Russ mentioned "dueling scientists". He pointed out that both sides trot out "experts" to support their opposing views. I think I see why the commissioners hate the public comment part of their meetings.

Amen Grandpa,

The problem with the whole WSR debate is that it has been based on emotion, rather than science. I realize steelhead provoke emotional responses, but still we are supposed to be rational beings.

The WSR folks maintain that impacts are too high. Fine, there are lots of ways to reduce impacts. WSR is one. I have previously proposed an alternative that would allow some harvest, but produce no more impacts.

There are many options that could yield the same reduced impacts. I think the debate should be about how to reduce angler impacts. Not WSR, no WSR. THere are many options.

The amount of disrespect board members show to each other on this topic is astounding.
Multiple board members have been banned due to their disrespectfulness. Judging by some of the above posts, more bans may be in order.

Please, people, lets be civil at least. If we are to convince non-fishers to do anything for fish, it would behoove us not to act like raving lunatics emoting everwhere.

If we disagree, at least be civil, please!

ET, Herm,

Calling you guys stupid trailer-trash crackers won’t win your hearts and minds either, eh? Funny thing is, I’m certain that CFM, Bruce, and RA3 all know that, yet they couldn’t refrain from personal attacks. Unless I miss my guess, RA3 is hanging in here because he isn’t directing his attack at a specific person, just all those who don’t see eye to eye with him.

The WSR issue is far more emotionally charged than I would have guessed. I wonder if a single reader has had his or her opinion influenced by the several lengthy threads that have discussed it. Maybe WSR threads shouldn’t be allowed, as we’ve lost otherwise productive members who couldn’t refrain from attacking specific members they disagreed with. I’m personally opposed to censorship, however, and wouldn’t care to see significant topics placed off limits.

Grandpa,

I find it interesting that Cahill reports that fly fishers are at the forefront of the WSR advocacy. I’ve heard that fly fishers comprise about 10% of the state’s angling population, and I would have figured that most fish for non-anadromous fish. The number of fly fishers pursuing steelhead exploded in the 1980s, but I wouldn’t have guessed we number even 10% of the steelheading population yet. Of the rivers I fish, only the Skagit is well numbered with fly rods. If fly fishers are such a small proportion of the steelheading public, I would think they number too few to significantly influence a statewide policy like WSR. I’m of a mind to believe that it is steelheaders with a strong conservation bent that have exerted the influence to persuade the Commission to temporarily extend WSR to the remaining OP rivers. If I’m wrong, I’d be really interested in what, specifically, informs Cahill’s opinion that fly fishers are the primary proponents of WSR.

As for dueling scientists, is that surprising? Facts may be facts, but many a conclusion is inferential, or opinion, based on personal interpretation of a set of facts. I see the phrase “best available science” every day at work and have to laugh. Who, with an IQ that would get them in out of the rain, to eloquently quote Herm, would admit to using less than the best available science to support their opinion? If the phrase ever had any meaning, it’s long since lost.

Herm & Geoduck,

It might seem as though the issue is one of reducing impacts to wild steelhead. However, fisheries management is more than biology and ecology. If it was just those, the solution is simple: close all fishing. Period. Management has always had two other major elements other than natural science. They are social and economic elements, social science if you will, and the yardsticks for measurement are different from the natural sciences in important ways. And there are often more than one way to achieve an intended outcome, hence the debate and arguing about which are the best alternatives to attain the desired outcome, which is effective conservation for most of us - I hope.

As has been stated repetitively here, WSR is not the one key action to recovery, even tho the antis just as repetitively respond as tho the advocates have insisted it is the silver bullet. Smalma has reminded the group that WSR contributes to recovery only when over-harvest is limiting productivity. Assuming we know all that we need to know for effective stock management, that is true. The one thing WSR will do on every river is put more spawners on the spawning grounds. On some rivers it will have no effect on productivity. On others, it likely will make the difference between making escapement and not. And on still other rivers, the effect simply won’t be known because there remain too many unknowns about those stocks.

Reading these threads has been a lot like observing personal management and investment philosophies. Some are conservative, and some are risk-takers. Some would harvest only when they are certain that conservation is assured. Others would harvest until it was certain that harvest was the direct and certain cause of loss of production, at which point they would forego harvest. The former wish to avoid repeating the errors of past management. The latter insist that every error be repeated, at least once, or they don’t see it as an error at all; it’s just the dynamics of the management style they prefer. Some folks stick with Blackjack; some prefer the roller coaster ride of craps and roulette.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo....I think what I got out of listening to Cahill on the radio was that the fly fishing groups have been the most vocal at the meetings. I know the meeting in Port Townsend which I attended had a lopsided presence of fly fishers and WSC members. Ok by me but I think Cahill was saying that the arguments never change and minds are never changed it is just which group is most persistent. He also said that Koenings is the trump card when it comes to science...He expects more fact based info to be introduced the next time this is discussed.

One of the elements of this debate that doesn't get much play is the motive of some of the advocates to clear the river banks of the "crackers"....NO question in my mind after seeing opinions from across the board for months. Many WSR advocates make no bones about how things would be much nicer with fewer fishers on the water....No quibble there. Sure it would be nicer. There are so many people taking part in every fishery we've got that I can't see how we can sustain this level of pressure.

Yesterday I went out in search of ling cod and saw a massive participation...same with shrimping a couple of weeks ago..massive pressure.

Maybe we should give up and turn over the fisheries to the indians. They could run the whole state like the Quinault. No native guide no fishing. That would cut down the pressure and get us out of the fish recovery business. Let the tribes handle every body of water in the state..set all the policies and seasons and limits....Charge say $150 for a permit to fish for a day anywhere in the state....lakes too. And they could enforce it too....$5,000 fine for fishing without a tribal permit. Fly fishing permits would cost $500 a day so only the guys with the fancy waders and Sage rods could participate. That would really cut down on pressure...So the ones who could afford it would have the peace and quiet and the quality experience they long for. Why not? The tribes pretty much control things now...

Everyone here I wish we could get over this Fly Fishers thing. I did a count at a WSC meeting a few years ago and I don't think much has changed. Concerned gear fishermen 60 % of the membership, Fly 40 %.

In the end it's all fishing.

LT,

That's been posted here...repeatedly...but it's kind of fun to bash flyfishers as elitists...and it's easire to bash the WSC if you call them flyfishing elitists. I can guarantee that no one on this or any other BB has ever seen a flyrod in my hand when going after anything but hatchery summer runs, or the occasional salmon trip.

grandpa...if this is what it means to be popular, I'm sure I don't want to see what "unpopular" is!

Fish on...

Todd